They were intended to be sick, offensive jokes. They weren't particularly funny, it's fair to say they were terribly misjudged and outright trash, but that's not a crime. Each instance needs to be judged on context and intent.
Otherwise it's a slope that leads to censorship of comedy tackling any difficult or sensitive subject.
How do you figure that? If people react badly to a joke then they have a right to voice that distaste. There was no "higher meaning" to that "comedy", no satire, no point other than the "I said things that upset people and it's funny because you aren't supposed to say it". He's no George Carlin(not talking about humor but of there being a point to the vulgarity past shock value).
Don't get me wrong, when it comes to James Gunn, I do realize that his case was specifically alt-right smear campaign, but the whole "don't judge offensive comedians otherwise it's censorship" is a bullshit tactic used to excuse low quality comedians and spineless assholes. Shock humor stopped being funny when we were 12, and nowadays is just an excuse.
And it isn't censorship when you put out content(be it a movie, a game, or a joke in a tweet) and the audience reacts negatively to it. You have a right to say whatever you like in public. And we as the public have the right to respond positively or negatively in kind.